There was a great article on The Athletic website this week about Denver GM Calvin Booth and his obsession with positional size paired with skill, and I think that concept comes into play with Atlanta. The Hawks saw that Trae was a massive defensive liability, so they thought adding a defensive minded guard in the back court could help, but the issue is still positional size. Dejounte at 6'5" has great height and length for a PG, but once he's swung over to SG, he's just an average sized guy for that spot, and he's playing next to an undersized PG. If you had something like DJ as a 6'5" PG and, say, a Herb Jones type at SG, that would be a different story. Look at Denver, with a 6'4" Murray paired with a 6'5" Caldwell-Pope, and then 6'7" Christian Braun and 6'4" Bruce Brown coming off the bench. No matter what configuration they use, there's never a time when opponents have an obvious mismatch to attack. I think Atlanta's dooming themselves to failure, thinking an undersized no defense high usage rate PG who shoots in the mid 30s from 3 is their golden ticket to a championship. The chances of that ever happening are monumentally small. I feel like when a certain player has a distinct advantage on the court, the team should try their best to amplify that advantage, rather than use it as a crutch. Utah did this with Gobert-- he was their "defensive guy," and then they put him on the court with 3 or 4 others who were undersized for their positions: Conley at 6'1', Mitc at 6'2', Royce O'Neale at 6'4", etc... I hope the Spurs don't make the same mistake going forward with Wembanyama, thinking that his extreme height and length give them the freedom to worry less about the height and length they surround him with. If anything, I'd like to see them hammer the advantage with more height, especially in the back court.